Curious-- is the Randian drivel still driving the right-wing? Or is the discourse so baked in by now that it just covertly drives the new tech-iteration like Yarvin and his puppets?
My parents were super-lefties, and my mother would not permit Rand books in our house. When I got curious and brought one home, she hung over my shoulder and I got an endless tutorial in the reactionary text/subtext. Love you, Mom!
(Also, as a therapist, I found Rand's bio a really sad and telling case study. Her output is just pure personality-disordered psychodrama, but unfortunately megaphoned to impact well beyond her micro system.)
A perfect takedown. I wish I could hand this essay to my 17 year old self before I got caught up in this religious-like nonsense for several years. Thanks again Mike. Your writing is wonderful.
Wonderful critique of Objectivism, Mike. Thank you!
I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead almost 50 yrs ago and found them arrogant and off-putting even at my young and impressionable age, but at an intuitive and emotional level, not with your clear-eyed polemics.
In high school at the time I read these books, I remember feeling disappointed and even saddened that Galt and Roark could so haughtily view themselves as superior to so many. Just because they could produce and sell stuff, had more wealth and power as a result of their economic productivity. But they seemed soulless, aesthetically dead and disconnected from the socio-cultural milieu in which their economic proclivities - actually, everything they were as humans - had been nurtured by a society that they scorned.
Anyway, thanks for an interesting and very thoughtful read…
Thank you!!! I’ve never been able to get through it. Talk about tedious…. It’s like listening to a chronic drunk explain why their life hasn’t turned out well.
Excellent analysis, as always. Brings to mind the quote by John Kenneth Galbraith: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
“I have read their bible—Atlas Shrugged—and found it intellectually and morally bankrupt. I have traced their arguments to their foundations and discovered nothing but circular reasoning and category errors. I have examined their claims to philosophical rigor and found only rhetorical sleight-of-hand masquerading as logical proof.”
Thank you Mike, I read Atlas Shrugged in college, not required, but because it became the talk of the town. And like you, I was left wanting; or more specifically dazed and confused!
Furthermore, her belief that self-interest, properly understood, is the standard of morality, while selflessness is the deepest immorality. Another contradiction that makes no sense to me. Full disclosure; I’m not a philosopher, nor have I ever played one on TV.
That said, I would later recognize her philosophy during the late eighties, when I was working on Wall Street; there is no community, just greed, as showcased in Wall Street. And I understand this to be the case, simply because many of my coworkers considered it their Bible.
And after reading several statements of hers about objectivism, it’s clear her philosophy was a contradiction in terms; and is anything but; objective. For example, she believed that Native Americans deserved to have their land confiscated, simply because they didn’t believe in individual rights, and she referred to them as savages. Quite the objective statement!
Even her idol Milton Friedman thought she was an “utterly intolerant and dogmatic person,” yet, he believed she also did a lot of good!” Obviously, a subjective statement, since Friedman”s philosophy and economic principles, did more harm than good.
Bottom line: I never care for Ayn Rand, never understood her philosophy, or her books, and honestly, I couldn’t care less about her or her faux morality. And as far as I’m concerned? Good riddance! IMHO!…:)
No human being is self-made. We are born into languages we did not create, rely on knowledge we did not discover, and operate within social structures we did not establish. Even the most innovative among us stand on the shoulders of countless others who came before. The very concept of individual achievement presupposes a social context that makes such achievement possible and meaningful. The paragraph feels rather Burkean.
Sorry, not finished that post. I had leftist parents and there was an aspect of Rand’s selfishness that appealed, if only as teenage rebellion. Also, she had a female heroine who owned a railroad and worked at all the jobs it offered. Once I was out in the real world, however, I realized that her world had no connection with that real world, and when I read a biography of her, I saw that she didn’t even lead the life she argued for.
So you call objectivism stupid, but then say that there’s only one missing piece from Rand’s philosophy for it to be coherent? And then you say that Galt’s message is mute simply because he’s giving it in speech form to others? Crumple this up and throw it in the trash.
Ok, I was fond of your blog before; but now you’re just rad.
Curious-- is the Randian drivel still driving the right-wing? Or is the discourse so baked in by now that it just covertly drives the new tech-iteration like Yarvin and his puppets?
My parents were super-lefties, and my mother would not permit Rand books in our house. When I got curious and brought one home, she hung over my shoulder and I got an endless tutorial in the reactionary text/subtext. Love you, Mom!
(Also, as a therapist, I found Rand's bio a really sad and telling case study. Her output is just pure personality-disordered psychodrama, but unfortunately megaphoned to impact well beyond her micro system.)
A perfect takedown. I wish I could hand this essay to my 17 year old self before I got caught up in this religious-like nonsense for several years. Thanks again Mike. Your writing is wonderful.
Wonderful critique of Objectivism, Mike. Thank you!
I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead almost 50 yrs ago and found them arrogant and off-putting even at my young and impressionable age, but at an intuitive and emotional level, not with your clear-eyed polemics.
In high school at the time I read these books, I remember feeling disappointed and even saddened that Galt and Roark could so haughtily view themselves as superior to so many. Just because they could produce and sell stuff, had more wealth and power as a result of their economic productivity. But they seemed soulless, aesthetically dead and disconnected from the socio-cultural milieu in which their economic proclivities - actually, everything they were as humans - had been nurtured by a society that they scorned.
Anyway, thanks for an interesting and very thoughtful read…
Thank you!!! I’ve never been able to get through it. Talk about tedious…. It’s like listening to a chronic drunk explain why their life hasn’t turned out well.
Excellent analysis, as always. Brings to mind the quote by John Kenneth Galbraith: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
“I have read their bible—Atlas Shrugged—and found it intellectually and morally bankrupt. I have traced their arguments to their foundations and discovered nothing but circular reasoning and category errors. I have examined their claims to philosophical rigor and found only rhetorical sleight-of-hand masquerading as logical proof.”
Thank you Mike, I read Atlas Shrugged in college, not required, but because it became the talk of the town. And like you, I was left wanting; or more specifically dazed and confused!
Furthermore, her belief that self-interest, properly understood, is the standard of morality, while selflessness is the deepest immorality. Another contradiction that makes no sense to me. Full disclosure; I’m not a philosopher, nor have I ever played one on TV.
That said, I would later recognize her philosophy during the late eighties, when I was working on Wall Street; there is no community, just greed, as showcased in Wall Street. And I understand this to be the case, simply because many of my coworkers considered it their Bible.
And after reading several statements of hers about objectivism, it’s clear her philosophy was a contradiction in terms; and is anything but; objective. For example, she believed that Native Americans deserved to have their land confiscated, simply because they didn’t believe in individual rights, and she referred to them as savages. Quite the objective statement!
Even her idol Milton Friedman thought she was an “utterly intolerant and dogmatic person,” yet, he believed she also did a lot of good!” Obviously, a subjective statement, since Friedman”s philosophy and economic principles, did more harm than good.
Bottom line: I never care for Ayn Rand, never understood her philosophy, or her books, and honestly, I couldn’t care less about her or her faux morality. And as far as I’m concerned? Good riddance! IMHO!…:)
“I Can See Clearly Now” is a song written, composed, and originally recorded by Johnny Nash:
https://genius.com/Johnny-nash-i-can-see-clearly-now-lyrics
No human being is self-made. We are born into languages we did not create, rely on knowledge we did not discover, and operate within social structures we did not establish. Even the most innovative among us stand on the shoulders of countless others who came before. The very concept of individual achievement presupposes a social context that makes such achievement possible and meaningful. The paragraph feels rather Burkean.
Sorry, not finished that post. I had leftist parents and there was an aspect of Rand’s selfishness that appealed, if only as teenage rebellion. Also, she had a female heroine who owned a railroad and worked at all the jobs it offered. Once I was out in the real world, however, I realized that her world had no connection with that real world, and when I read a biography of her, I saw that she didn’t even lead the life she argued for.
Excellent critique. I read Rand’s novels in high school and was quite taken by them—I having leftist parents, I probably felt
So you call objectivism stupid, but then say that there’s only one missing piece from Rand’s philosophy for it to be coherent? And then you say that Galt’s message is mute simply because he’s giving it in speech form to others? Crumple this up and throw it in the trash.
Well done Mike. Btw, here’s the only objectivism worth reading: https://the-toast.net/2014/05/27/ayn-rands-harry-potter-sorcerers-stone/